Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

through loong explanations that guarantee to have them screw it up? Here's an example,
When doing Shiko "Open your pelvis, put your intent from your left foot to your right hand. Cross-line body work is very important. Draw yourself over with your right hand, "pull yourself back upright with your left leg pulling your right side hand back up, while your left hand draws your right leg up and you right leg is pulling down. Maintain and hold these six contradicting lines in your body; up/ down, left / right, front/ back, and while you are doing that hold a connection from your feet to each opposite hand. If you can; try rising up in the back and sinking through the front, at the same time. Do it till your intent is so refined that "your will" pops you off your own feet when you go back upright. Oops I see your spine let your sort of slide over and your postural alignment broke!" Er...good luck with that.

Hey! That looked like the DUI test I got. I did pretty well; however, my intention wandered a bit.

Ya. I don't talk much about things that really are meaningless to read on the net. I have people doing them in person who fail to get it right. Why go through loong explanations that guarantee to have them screw it up? Here’s an example,
When doing Shiko "Open your pelvis, put your intent from your left foot to your right hand. Cross-line body work is very important. Draw yourself over with your right hand, "pull yourself back upright with your left leg pulling your right side hand back up, while your left hand draws your right leg up and you right leg is pulling down. Maintain and hold these six contradicting lines in your body; up/ down, left / right, front/ back, and while you are doing that hold a connection from your feet to each opposite hand. If you can; try rising up in the back and sinking through the front, at the same time. Do it till your intent is so refined that "your will" pops you off your own feet when you go back upright. Oops I see your spine let your sort of slide over and your postural alignment broke!" Er...good luck with that.
At any one point- with people doing these things together with me- they are failing to maintain something or other all over the place. So why talk about it on the net when they can’t do it in person? Another point that I cannot stress enough is that when I work with people I work with them individually. Everyone has their own kinks or sticking points to work through. I had one guy who has trained in ICMA has trained with Ark and Mike, understood the exercises and was working his butt off. He made progress, but was falling apart at a certain point every time. Its only after working with him hands-on (yes I think Ark or Mike would have spotted it too) that I realized his problem was that-although he knew exactly what to do and could describe things better than I do-his connections were a mess due to the way he "broke" under stress in his upper center. He couldn't tell what was falling apart or how to fix it. So what point would outlining exercises on the net be?
I think a whole bunch of us have been led down merry little paths by people who don’t know what they're doing. Whether by design or by innocence we still have a bunch of people who didn't get the magic, they Asian arts were known for and we are ourselves kept hearing about. I want to make sure that at least in my small contribution, I put tools in their hands they can use. I talk "about it" on the net, not how to do it.

See above. I think Arks, mine or anyone else’s on-line descriptions are a waste of time.

As has been previously discussed, time and opportunities to meet with people in person are very limited. So if we get even one occasion to meet up with someone and bring some homework to do over extremely long stretches of time without supervision, then any and all information is useful. I found your description of points of focus in the shiko exercise informative, having at least gone over the exercise with Akuzawa once myself, because you explained it in a different way than he did! You might have even misinformed me all the same, but if I'm banging away on stuff all by myself and likely to go wrong anyway, how does the added information hurt?

And even though managing all those intentions in one movement are complex and there will be some point where you break down where supervision would be helpful to point out where... there are "intentions for dummies" methods that make it a bit easier (not fool-proof, but easier) to self-study, by giving you more time to reflect on all the stupid stuff you end up doing wrong. You could break that shiko exercise down even further by treating it not as a movement, but a path along which you can pick out points of study. So you go along until you fall apart, and rather than keep moving through and skipping the problem, stop there, and just stay there for a while practicing the intents in that one spot, unmoving, until they are strong. Do that for a many points along the way so the coordination in each point is understood. Then go back to movement again. Am I possibly misinforming people by saying that? I'll take the risk!

I don't see a forum as a place for instruction so much as a virtual study group. We're all students here, so we can still discuss about things that are helping us, or mistakes we have made and worked through, or mistakes we think we're making and can't find our way out of, regardless of how complex the subject matter is.

When doing Shiko "Open your pelvis, put your intent from your left foot to your right hand. Cross-line body work is very important. Draw yourself over with your right hand, "pull yourself back upright with your left leg pulling your right side hand back up, while your left hand draws your right leg up and you right leg is pulling down. Maintain and hold these six contradicting lines in your body; up/ down, left / right, front/ back, and while you are doing that hold a connection from your feet to each opposite hand. If you can; try rising up in the back and sinking through the front, at the same time. Do it till your intent is so refined that "your will" pops you off your own feet when you go back upright. Oops I see your spine let your sort of slide over and your postural alignment broke!" Er...good luck with that.

Actually since there are videos online of Akuzawa and Rob doing a variant, this makes more sense than you might think. Granted I wouldn't expect to learn it well from just video and asking questions online, but I still think there is potential value because people can compare notes. Rob L. may not know how to do it well, but perhaps well enough that if somebody ran into him they could get some pointers. As long as there are no illusions and people keep refining (as they have to do anyway) I think it would be a benefit.

Quote:

At any one point- with people doing these things together with me- they are failing to maintain something or other all over the place. So why talk about it on the net when they can't do it in person?

It seems like putting together a puzzle with pieces of collected information, and you never know what bit of information might cause something to click for someone. Rob John could say if anyone made improvement on Ark's material in between seminars. In other words there are probably a number of people who saw him twice, with a year in between. If they made some progress then that shows that while training with someone every week would be great, it's still possible to grind along and get somewhere with infrequent access to any correction.

There will be imperfect transmission and people heading down the wrong path for a little while here and there, and maybe in some cases taking big detours, but that's to be expected with any training process. Information is always better than a lack of information; what people do with it is up to them.

It seems like putting together a puzzle with pieces of collected information, and you never know what bit of information might cause something to click for someone. Rob John could say if anyone made improvement on Ark's material in between seminars. In other words there are probably a number of people who saw him twice, with a year in between.

As much as I understand Dan H's pov, there have been times where I've seen Ark pleasantly surprised by people's progress, without mentioning any names, especially considering the fact that they only have long distance access to us.

Putting it in another light,
Ark only had personal contact with his own instructor for a period of two years, and even then it was once a week if he was lucky, but more on the lines of once every two weeks.
Granted, it was a deeper study than what you would probably get in any class, but the point being that for the most part I have the impression that he had to study and think on his own for the most part.

And we have students that come pretty much every week, but still don't get what they're supposed to be doing...so it goes both ways.

Honestly I think it boils down to two factors, most people dont think hard enough about the stuff, and don't put in the practice time.

As much as I understand Dan H's pov, there have been times where I've seen Ark pleasantly surprised by people's progress, without mentioning any names, especially considering the fact that they only have long distance access to us.

Thanks Rob, that pretty much confirms my suspicions. Some people will not learn even with regular hands-on, whereas other people can do a lot on their own. It's a fact of life that people are not equally talented in all things. So it doesn't make sense to deny information in the general belief that no one can use it. People who are sufficiently talented and motivated can do a lot with a little guidance, and they shouldn't suffer due to the flailings of the less fortunate. If you put information out there, it will be of use to the people who are most likely to make progress anyway.

Actually since there are videos online of Akuzawa and Rob doing a variant, this makes more sense than you might think. Granted I wouldn't expect to learn it well from just video and asking questions online, but I still think there is potential value because people can compare notes. Rob L. may not know how to do it well, but perhaps well enough that if somebody ran into him they could get some pointers. As long as there are no illusions and people keep refining (as they have to do anyway) I think it would be a benefit.

It seems like putting together a puzzle with pieces of collected information, and you never know what bit of information might cause something to click for someone. Rob John could say if anyone made improvement on Ark's material in between seminars. In other words there are probably a number of people who saw him twice, with a year in between. If they made some progress then that shows that while training with someone every week would be great, it's still possible to grind along and get somewhere with infrequent access to any correction.

There will be imperfect transmission and people heading down the wrong path for a little while here and there, and maybe in some cases taking big detours, but that's to be expected with any training process. Information is always better than a lack of information; what people do with it is up to them.

Dan
You missed my point almost entirely. And ironically I couldn't respond. I have had a group of guys here training...long distance! Who have been reading the thread.

So....I didn't say I don't teach long distance-I do. I was arguing nuance and my preferences for starting people off. Your conclusions drawn from that-were more along the lines that I was discounting the method altogether. Which considering how I spend much of my time, either learning, or teaching- is really rather hilarious.

As I said, a group of guys just left here after a 2 day seminar. I haven't seen one of them for about 6 months. Yes he made progress, but there was still allot of missteps and burned-in wrong paths in his body. In short order that was fixed and he even had some significant breakthroughs while here. So of course it can still be productive. Its just a question of geting started off correctly -which he did-hence my earlier comments. Had he not. I think the time here would have been almost entirely of re-training rather than tune-ups and new material.
It is for that reason I said for someone starting out with me -I- don't want to do it, if for that first year I only get to see them once. The first steps are critical with me so I want to ensure they get started correctly. a) So I can feel what their body is doing. b) So that they have a clear understanding of what they should be pursuing in that first year.
Most of the time people only discuss students. I was discussing MY TIME. not just theirs. I know how I teach, and what I can do with people. So I want to maximise that proven track record, and minimize wasting both of our times. Otherwise I just don't want to get involved. I'd consider it a failed attempt or false start. That's just my opinion.
Since I trained mostly long distance for 9 years, doing long seminars and coming home and having to innovate and feel propreaceptively. And secondly- having to focus on body work- as no one wanted to do the highly suspect pretzel logic waza much in the first place, and third, considering as I said, I both personally train, and then teach long distance today, then all due respect-I'm probably the last person on earth who needs to be told whats involved or given pointers on the difficulties of either this material, or training long distance in the first place...ohy!
I live it, and get it...in spades!

All other facets, comparisons of talent and innate ability are of course open for discussion, and there are good points and bad. After getting a good start I think more can be accomplished with folks that are bright, innovative, and hungry. It is the start up I was addressing, and the fact that no amount of descriptions I have seen have helped much without the hands-on explanation accompanying them.
YMMV-I get to see and feel quite a few folks trying to get some connection burned in..Waza isn't gonna a do it-not by a long shot. Its the slowest method out there. And neither is descriptions on the net to those who are not training with someone who can touch them and make corrections in person.
One last thing
I don't have people who train every week who are not getting it. I just don't. If they keep coming they get it and it builds. Those who train with me long distance are getting it as well. I get to see the comparisons of my own methods with my own people weekly or long distance all the time. The weekly training hands-on, is just simply the better way.
Hope that clarifies my view a little better for ya.

Well I did make a mistake in stating "Erick was waste of time." Sorry Erick.
What I meant to say was "For purposes of this discussion Ericks attempts to detail and model what we are doing without any experience is a waste of time for those trying to learn or understand."

Well, let's see about that.

Quote:

Dan Harden wrote:

For that matter...as I outlined... I think my own descriptions are a waste of time.

Don't be so hard on yourself.

Quote:

Dan Harden wrote:

When doing Shiko "Open your pelvis, put your intent from your left foot to your right hand. Cross-line body work is very important. pull yourself back upright with your left leg pulling your right side hand back up, while your left hand draws your right leg up and you right leg is pulling down. Maintain and hold these six contradicting lines in your body; up/ down, left / right, front/ back, and while you are doing that hold a connection from your feet to each opposite hand. If you can; try rising up in the back and sinking through the front, at the same time. Do it till your intent is so refined that "your will" pops you off your own feet when you go back upright. Oops I see your spine let your sort of slide over and your postural alignment broke!"

There are two key mechanical points in the exercise: "Draw yourself over with your right hand, "pull yourself back upright with your left leg pulling your right side hand back up",

"... left hand draws your right leg up and you right leg is pulling down."

Since after you draw yourself over you are supporting weight on one leg, the spiral formed through the torso to the opposite arm is in compression.

The unloaded spiral of the matching opposed arm/leg is not limp, but "pulling, " i.e. --in tension

Look at the torsion tube stress diagram again and see the stress lines in 90 degree offset tension and compression on the bias with respect to the long axis -- matching the opposed tension compression in the limbs in shiko at the elevated position . http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/attach...9&d=1215185239

Cross-body linkage is showing that torsional shear (in the horizontal plane, parallel to the floor) is what you are creating -- while rotating in a perpendicular frame (the transverse plane).

While shiko is ostensibly presented as action in-plane (transverse rotation of the torso -- along the vertical plane cutting you into a front half and back half) the developed shear stress you just described defines a spiral action or potential (torque or moment) rotating in a horizontal plane perpendicular to the plane of the torso rotation.

What name do we use to describe a torque action created by shear on a plane perpendicular to a plane in which a rotation or applied moment is occurring?

Hint: it begins with the letter "G."

Since it is a spiral, it has both a horizontal aspect and a longitudinal aspect. If the longitudinal aspect of the spiral is expanding then the horizontal aspect is necessarily contracting, and vice versa. This is asagao, and also an aspect of chan si jing.

This does not necessarily dictate either tension or compression in either setting. A spiral may contract in one of these aspects because it is internally stressed in one way (tension) or because it is externally stressed in the opposite way (compression), or expand if it is given the opposite stresses, internally or externally, respectively. Because these are equivalent, the structure can react to relieve imposed stress (or to express that stress) on any axis allowed by the spiral(s) defined by the shear stress interaction.

I remember you did this type of analysis before:http://aikiweb.com/forums/showpost.p...36&postcount=1
but my understanding and THE point here is that you do not claim the ability to be able to do any of the things Dan does and teaches in terms of using aiki. If that is the case, and you can model it so well, what's the point? Who does it possibly help? I'm seriously not trying to pick a fight - I'm just really not understanding your intention.

In this medium, Dan chooses not to be very specific very often about what does do. Should I assume he can't specify because he can't do things? Hardly fair, and yet that is the standard that Dan seems to apply in reverse.

Since Dan comes from a tradition that does not openly share such things, that may be understandable. When he comes into contact with someone who forcefully seeks the transparency and objectivity of Western thought on such topics (not without its own limitations, I assure you), there will be some misunderstandings. I try to treat them charitably so far as I can and I only draw the line at anyone misrepresenting what I have said. I think Dan does try to treat the issue charitably, that point notwithstanding, within his own manner of thinking. But he way over-judges from this medium what he himself says this medium cannot disclose. He is just wrong about what he thinks I have said or what that means.

I have tried to tie him down to objective definitions of jargon of the type that I pointed out that you yourself have now adopted -- as in quantifying and qualifying the issues of "pushing " and moving " and what he means by that. He has taken my attempt to tie his terms of art to objective criteria as a lack of understanding what he says, but when he is as specific as he just was on the point of training shiko it is is simple to show the points of congruence in how he understands things and how I understand them, and their relationship to traditional concepts such as asagao, which is a very rich image.

Jargon is fine as shorthand -- but people have to acknowledge the limitations that closed terms of art have both in extending knowledge beyond what is known, and extending that knowledge to those that do not know it as well.

Quote:

Rob Liberti wrote:

If that is the case, and you can model it so well, what's the point? Who does it possibly help? I'm seriously not trying to pick a fight - I'm just really not understanding your intention.

It is a difference of types of knowledge -- between alchemy and chemistry. Both play with the same stuff, but their approach and ways of describing and understanding what they are doing are radically different. Both can make silver fulminate, for example ( which I most definitely DO NOT recommend, BTW) -- but they understand what that thing is very differently, even if they both handle it with equal care and understanding of its uses and hazards. It leads them to approach other knowledge differently when trying to relate different things to common principles.

As to the applicability of my approach, Dan's training ( as I would perceive it to be from what he has said is in the slow solo structural working of finding the torsional shear paths through the body, as I view the question and just illustrated. (Shioda's "Big toe = kokyu ryoku" comment makes perfect sense from my way of thinking -- but I have no idea how Dan might view that. The mode is as Chris Moses has said, of presenting a relaxed structural "wall" to the opponent. Dan criticizes the rather more loose and pendular action of traditional waza training (which is also present some solo training also, like udefuri undo or happo undo.

As the blog link of mine that you attached shows, they are the same things at a fundamental level. They only appear superficially different. The result being a warning for students of both approaches -- if you concentrate on the differences rather than the similarities (in either mode of action ) you are likely to be led astray. Of course, if one is never aware from the beginning that there even ARE any similarities then it is matter of blind chance if you stumble over them, and even then likely in ways you are predisposed to misperceive.

When you speak of Gleason "rewiring" it is evidence -- to me at least (at an obvious remove) -- that at an intuitive level he has grasped the fundamental similarity in his own terms. Your complaint has been that his understanding has not been made express in ways you were easily grasping. So you seek training in another mode to see what is missing. Kudos to you.

I am trying to make overt what is hidden by altering the perspective in understanding how we train and why we train (read the title of my blog) -- regardless of the mode or type of training. The thing hidden in plain sight can be looked at from the right side or the left side. It can easily disappear from view in either case.

Experience is the best guide. I spent ten years flying and looking at a problem from above enables you to see some aspects of BOTH of those perspectives simultaneously -- thus, there are fewer places for the knowledge to hide. It revolutionized practical warfare; and a similar change of perspective can alter an understanding of aiki and budo. It is a radically different perspective, and may not suffer the same limitations of perception (it has others, certainly).

It does, thanks for that. I also understand the time demands, and I imagine you, Mike and Rob get bombarded with emails on a regular basis. My only comment would be that it's possible for those who haven't met you to get value out of what you say online if they have prior hands-on with Mike or Akuzawa, or if they've encountered a Wang Hai Jun or similar solid lineage teacher. Even if some of those teachers don't teach very well, the knowledge of what to look for is enhanced by these discussions. I have no problem believing that hands-on is necessary to begin to understand a complex training process, but the more knowledge that's available the more likely people are to seek out more information and make progress, even if it doesn't click before a certain amount of hands-on exposure.

I remember you did this type of analysis before:http://aikiweb.com/forums/showpost.p...36&postcount=1
but my understanding and THE point here is that you do not claim the ability to be able to do any of the things Dan does and teaches in terms of using aiki. If that is the case, and you can model it so well, what's the point? Who does it possibly help? I'm seriously not trying to pick a fight - I'm just really not understanding your intention.

Rob

I think it's just reflexive bloviating at this point. And no matter how cleverly he tries to spin it, the implication we're supposed to get is that he knows how to do these things. Maybe he can secretly meet up and learn what's really being done, then someday claim that's what he was doing all along. Perhaps this is all laying the groundwork for that, and if so I imagine he won't be the only one to try to pretend he was on the boat all along. In the end the only thing that will matter is the skill level of the individual, and anyone who meets both Dan and Erick will know the deal. As I've said before, I don't see Erick meeting up with anyone for precisely that reason. The thing is, all Erick's meaningless over-analysis might have a use if he actually knew how to do things correctly.He's not wrong that an accurate western understanding could be useful someday, but he would have to physically demonstrate understanding before his discussions can be taken seriously. At this point nobody's ever seen him ride a bike, yet he's jumping into a discussion by people interested in cycling and telling Lance Armstrong about the torque Lance is applying to his bike pedals. And thinking that somehow that doesn't appear ridiculous. People want to hear from the pros Erick, not from the guy in the bleachers holding the oversized foam hand.

Erick, I don't mean to be unfair. It comes down to demonstrative skills. Lets just look at the ablity to stand there and not lose stabiltiy when someone pushes on you from any angle.

If anyone - anyone at all - meets up with Dan and wants to get started doing this stuff, he'll probably say okay push on me, and then he'll want to push on them.

It won't matter what can possibly be meant by "push" or any other specific. However they push will be fine. He will most likely say - "push harder" or "are you pushing?". He won't be pushed off balance in any way shape or form unless the pushing person has incredible internal skill as well - and we can pretty much count on that not being too common. Wang Hai Jun got Dan lifted up and back a bit, and Dan still managed to not lose balance and recover. (There aren't too many WHJ ability level people out there.)

To compare - if anyone goes to visit you and you say - "push on me"; and that random person pushes you - in whatever way they want - will you be able to avoid losing your balance? If there is even a question about "well - what is meant by 'push'" - then I don't think you are doing things at the same level. Even if you have better understanding physically of what Dan can do. You just can't realistically expect anyone to get too interested in that kind of analysis unless it is actually helping people achieve somewhat similar (or better) results.

Further, if anyone goes to visit Dan, and tries to push on some of his students - pick anyone in the class who has been there for 6months, and compares how resistive they are to a push - odds are extremely good that they will feel a marked difference in stability compared to the average person.

If someone goes to visit your dojo, and tries that with any of your students, would you expect the same results? If no, then again the physical analysis seems to be without much use - to at least me. I think it is better to learn the latest jargon with hands on experience and then use it to fast track success in gaining ability.

I'm not going after you really. I'm just saying that these simple tests of demonstrative skills buy credibility in terms of improving understanding. Theory - no matter how accurate - from someone without such demonstrative skills really has no chance of being heard. Even by me - and I'm fairly open to pretty much any idea if I can imagine a use for it.

Erick, I don't mean to be unfair. It comes down to demonstrative skills.

Fairness doesn't enter into it. Simple empirical questions do: What are you demonstrating? How do you measure it? One can trivially knock a masonry arch over sideways that will carry static in-plane loads of several tons. It matters how you define what you will demonstrate.

"Not moving" for example. Does it mean the hips don't move? The torso doesn't move? The feet don't move? None of the above move? Or merely that kuzushi is not obtained? Is the video of Ark doing pushout drillls an example of "not moving?" ( -- Because he is, even if subtly).

I don't have a problem with calling that a demonstration of "not moving" as long as we are clear on what that means. If you are not clear on the answer to those questions then you do not fully understand the nature of the skill you are demonstrating -- even if you can demonstrate it -- because I can always find "moving" in a jointed bipedal active dampening structure subject to a lateral eccentric load. Something WILL move, even if you deem it to satisfy what you deem "not moving." in which case your vaunted demonstrative test goes right back to being a pointless semantic dispute. If the terms WERE defined, then the dispute does not exist.

They are also not idle practical questions, if you wish to demonstrate something empirical, because "not moving" in each of the cases I laid out may mean very different things mechanically. But Dan doesn't think in such terms; he is not the analytic type, so he has never answered those kinds of questions. I don't take it amiss.

Quote:

Rob Liberti wrote:

Lets just look at the ability to stand there and not lose stability when someone pushes on you from any angle.

You've changed the criteria from Dan and mike's statemetn of it. They said "not moving." You say "not lose stability. " I actually take that to be helpfully narrower if slightly more abstract, in that "stability" (in most settings) implies a righting moment to regain position from distrubance. Different from "not moving."

Again, simple empirical questions: Do I get to choose what stance he demonstrates the skill from? Is it impulse (momentum) dependent or merely static load (moment) dependent? Does it start in contact or can the push be occurring as contact is obtained? Or none of the above? Does he get a blind fold or other sensory limitations? Where do you draw the line between "push" and "strike?" Does it matter for purposes of the demonstration?

Quote:

Rob Liberti wrote:

If anyone - anyone at all - meets up with Dan and wants to get started doing this stuff, he'll probably say okay push on me, and then he'll want to push on them.
...
To compare - if anyone goes to visit you and you say - "push on me"; and that random person pushes you - in whatever way they want - will you be able to avoid losing your balance? If there is even a question about "well - what is meant by 'push'" - then I don't think you are doing things at the same level.

As to Wang Hai Jun -- you saw that, did you, to see what that actually meant? Or did Wang 老師 tell you how it went himself?

Regardless of "the level" (What does THAT mean?) they are the SAME THINGS. Since the criteria of "level" are not defined, I feel no obligation to self-criticize myself into conformity, or pay deference. If you want me to acknowledge anything -- it is simple -- define your terms and show me wrong. I'll admit it.

I am admittedly operating from a very different perspective, but I don't see that as a "level" -- whether of understanding, performance or otherwise. My effort does not require denigrating anyone to pursue this path -- nor adulating them in the least bit either.

AND If there were no questions then why are we here?
...

Quote:

Rob Liberti wrote:

I'm not going after you really. I'm just saying that these simple tests of demonstrative skills buy credibility in terms of improving understanding.

I am not interested in credibility -- precisely because what I am looking towards is a system of understanding and explanation in terms that COMPLETELY NEGATE credibility as an issue.

Quote:

Rob Liberti wrote:

Theory - no matter how accurate - from someone without such demonstrative skills really has no chance of being heard.

You may believe it or not but nothing I discuss has anything but a basis in experience and observation, internal and otherwise. Your preference is your own. You can ignore me at your leisure. I am not seeking acolytes, but a framework for knowledge. I don't compel anyone to read (although objective evidence suggests that some apparently do) or to respond. The adversary discovery of truth works whether one side values the interaction or not. So questioning me as to ill-defined arbitrary bona fides is irrelevant to the purpose.

I don't usually fall down or even lose balance, even when struck hard (not that getting struck is bright idea in the first place). "Shutting down" technique (as opposed to making its completion utterly immaterial) is not a such a manifest demonstration of talent in my book, so much as it is of an obstinant purpose -- not a good strategic trait, BTW. Beyond that I can't say nor care to speculate without some parameters I could honestly look at. I feel little need for vetting, even if I would fail a test, however defined, and it is by no means clear to me that I would.

Mr. Navier and Mr. Stokes never saw an airplane, much less flew one (they did not exist at the time). But no aircraft flying today has left the drawing board without consulting them. We don't have that for aiki -- but there is absolutely no reason that we shouldn't.

I think it's just reflexive bloviating at this point. ... The thing is, all Erick's meaningless over-analysis might have a use if he actually knew how to do things correctly.

If it is meaningless it has no use, whether I can do anything or not.

But acknowledging the general correctness of your conclusion, I will patiently await the falsification of your implied premise.

Quote:

Dan Austin wrote:

At this point nobody's ever seen him ride a bike, yet he's jumping into a discussion by people interested in cycling ...

If I tell you how a bike keeps upright would that help??? (that dang "G" word again )... If the observation was correct and I couldn't ride the bike would that make it wrong or less useful knowledge? If I could ride with hands but not without hands would that make my understanding of the principles of cycling stability less sound ?.

Can you ride without hands? And if not -- how dare you talk about biking stability! Keep to the stands -- you piker ! :

Interestingly enough, how a bicycle maintains its stability was one of the first questions I responded to as this line of discussion began, oh ,so many posts ago.

(I draw the line between "push" and "strike" such that if I hit the person that is a strike.)

Regardless of:
who pushes,
how hard they push,
and where they push
The question is can you do maintain stability such that if someone puts an X on the floor, and you stand on the X, at the end of the pushing, you are still on that X and never left it - your feet stayed where they were the whole time. Dan can period. He can do it under more difficult situations as well - but let's keep it simple. Several of his students can do this as well. I'm getting better at it myself. Can you? This is not a challenge, but you see, if you can't then I find the analysis a bit useless. If you can and your students can't then again I would find your analysis a bit useless.

By the way I did not see Wang Hai Jun push Dan and he did not tell me how it went himself. My point was that you have to be somewhere near that level of internal power/skill to have much chance of pushing him past stability.

Why is your goal "to achieve a system of understanding and explanation in terms that COMPLETELY NEGATE credibility as an issue"? To what end? If it helped someone do these things, then yes please continue. If not, it seems like you are just getting in the way or muddying the waters compared to "the jargon with the proven track record" - which seems odd to me.

(I draw the line between "push" and "strike" such that if I hit the person that is a strike.)

I agree, but the question must be asked.

Quote:

Rob Liberti wrote:

Why is your goal "to achieve a system of understanding and explanation in terms that COMPLETELY NEGATE credibility as an issue"? To what end?

Because objectivity is not an end in itself, but is an essential perspective without which subjectivity is an equally dead end. In-Yo. Credibility is belief. You can believe in gravity or not -- it does not care nor does it change. Things in those terms are not subject to credibility -- they just are.

Quote:

Rob Liberti wrote:

If it helped someone do these things, then yes please continue. If not, it seems like you are just getting in the way or muddying the waters compared to "the jargon with the proven track record" - which seems odd to me.

I had this discussion with a good friend -- on a completely unrelated topic -- that we should study nature because of what it tells us about truth, not merely to see what we can make it do without catastrophic failure. But that verges into your forbidden area on this thread.

It has helped me to understand a great deal. Our students improve. I do not foolishly try to teach in these terms except for very basic concepts-- but understanding things in these terms directs how I teach, and so far with some success. I have no grander ambition than that. I cannot speak for anyone else.

I don't pretend that approaching things in this way is a be all-end-all. But it is a perspective that has been left wanting for development. If you or anyone feels I am trashing it -- one of YOU guys take it up and do better -- in these terms. Why? Not because I want it -- but because it should be done. I'll happily sit back and watch -- and not carp overmuch with undue criticism. Otherwise, quitcher griping.

...if someone puts an X on the floor, and you stand on the X, at the end of the pushing, you are still on that X and never left it - your feet stayed where they were the whole time. Dan can period. He can do it under more difficult situations as well - but let's keep it simple. Several of his students can do this as well. I'm getting better at it myself.

Definitely, riding no hands. . Or -- does he use his hands/arms? Does he receive merely, or does he express a countering touch or adjustment? Always more with the questions.

Now, as rumor has it, it is a bit of a liability being too stuck in one spot against a sword. So how does Dan make his stability practices relate in a coherent way to the required critical INstability that makes for swift maneuver? He doesn't talk much about that.

I've made my relation of those two principles explicit in the link you cited.

Does he receive merely, or does he express a countering touch or adjustment?

Dan can do either/both.

His ability to stay so super balanced while moving and attacking is the #2 reason I have been so impressed with him. His students' abilities are the #1 reason.

My making it simple was to get a sense of if you can do it as well at the simplest level, and if your students could. I'm assuming (no offense - everyone is assuming the same) that you cannot do the same - unless you state otherwise.

Sorry about my boundry issue, feel free to start a new thread in any thread devoid of "non-aikido" in the title and I'll discuss it as far as I can (admittedly, I'm not sure how far that is, but I'd be willing to try).

As far as someone else doing it - I think that is a terrible idea.
I think the only reasonable idea to do it and have it be worth reading is to actually meet with Dan or one of the other guys and THEN model to your hearts content. Then, show that model to students and tell us about their improvement. IF they do improve to anywhere near the ability of the people using "jargon" everyone will become completely interested. Until then, I think you are asking to describe a truth - no one believes you have any true insight into - and seem to be wondering why no one knows how to help collaborate with you.

I know you want "truth" - I think we (those using jargon) just want what is "best" and your attempt at "truth" doesn't seem to be what's best which makes it difficult for us to consider it "truth".

I want to give my quick two cents. I'm a cerebral person. Engineering type, good at scientific analysis, also been doing budo for about 17yrs. I've trained with Dan only 4 or 5 times over the past two years and without the intense hands on approach of his, I feel that I would've gotten nowhere. In fact, I've had teachers tell me to my face some of the same things that Dan tells me but it all went over my head. The more I tried to cerebralize it, the faster it flew by. I'm sure there are some martial genius' that can take the written word and immediately rewire their body but I can not. Nor can I do it when my body is physically placed in the correct position through the hand of someone in the know. I assume I'll get better at "it" if I put the time in given the level of instruction I have at my fingertips. For now I can't do it but I can feel *it* when I encounter it and I WANT IT!!

Okay, I'm rambling but to keep it short: I highly doubt that you can get *it* by reading about *it*. You've got to be open to it, you've got to encounter someone who can do it and teach it, and you have to put in the time to get it. Frankly, I just don't see another way to acquiring the goods.

I'm sure there are some martial genius' that can take the written word and immediately rewire their body but I can not. ... I highly doubt that you can get *it* by reading about *it*.

It is occasionally necessary to repeat my oft ignored refrain. Even an indisputably valid physical description of aiki is not a substitute for sound physical training. A more reliable guide and check for noted errors, perhaps. That's good bunkai. But even that is not the point. The thing itself is the point.

It is occasionally necessary to repeat my oft ignored refrain. Even an indisputably valid physical description of aiki is not a substitute for sound physical training. A more reliable guide and check for noted errors, perhaps. That's good bunkai. But even that is not the point. The thing itself is the point.

And being able to discuss the things itself...as the point is meaningless when
a) you do not know what the thing is.
b) cannot do the thing being discussed.
c) go on trying to describe it from afar by guess work disguised as definitive physical terminology.

In a show of hands for any sort of ability to do or teach these things....you're not even in the room.
THAT...is the point.
And good luck to anyone trying to find...the thing itself, by yourself.
Still hoping to get together some day to train and to point out...the thing itself

It is occasionally necessary to repeat my oft ignored refrain. Even an indisputably valid physical description of aiki is not a substitute for sound physical training. A more reliable guide and check for noted errors, perhaps. That's good bunkai. But even that is not the point. The thing itself is the point.

First let me say that I understand this is a message board and as such the method we have of communication is written. However, may I ask what exactly is the point of trying to describe fundamentals of internal power generation, among other extremely difficult concepts, using scientific terminology in this medium? In the best case scenario, what do you think the people reading the material you write will gain from it? Just curious....

Why is it so threatening that I can take a substantive description of your exercise (shiko is hardly YOURS anyway) and provide a substantive physical description of consistent physical principles that are involved and illustrated in it? Why does this require attack?

Quote:

Dan Harden wrote:

And being able to discuss the things itself...as the point is meaningless when ...

... what exactly is the point of trying to describe fundamentals of internal power generation, among other extremely difficult concepts, using scientific terminology in this medium?

Do you have a more likely forum in mind?

While Dan is simply inventing a new form of jargon (see post above) to deal with things that have a functional vocabulary in Non Western terms ("Asagao" being a sterling example he has touched on and then ignored) -- his jargon, while in English, adds nothing to traditional terminology, and does not track actual terminology or concepts of Western mechanics.

One can legitimately dislike as a matter of taste the admittedly densely packed aspects of mechanical terms. But they have a singular advantage. They CAN BE unpacked independently of the ad hoc terminology being addressed by Dan.

Mechanical structure and function are properly described in their own easily verified terms. Once that is accomplished, you are not dependent on anything but your own powers of observation to note and correct errors from a valid mechanical principle. That may or may not be sufficient at any given point of a student's perceptual thresholds but at some point it becomes so -- and thus threatens those who would like to dictate -- literally-- the terms of discussion.

I cannot dictate principles of physics -- I can only suggest choices among the various useful conventions. If I get it wrong (and occasionally I have) I can be called on the point and I will correct it if the error is demonstrated.

A question: Who stands ready to correct (or even seriously question) Dan in HIS terms?

Quote:

Mark Chiappetta wrote:

In the best case scenario, what do you think the people reading the material you write will gain from it? Just curious....

What they choose to -- or not as the case may be. I demand nothing but being clear in what what one means.

The question, in someone else's idiom that I have trained with, is what terminology belongs to the leaves and what belongs to the roots -- where the tree is now in a new soil.